Court: The Second Amendment Doesn't Protect Your Right To A Machine Gunhttp://www.businessinsider.com/9th-circuit-ruling-on-machine-guns-2012-8/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:05:15 -0400Abby Rogershttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5027f7966bb3f78e0700000dDan O'BrienSun, 12 Aug 2012 14:36:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5027f7966bb3f78e0700000d
I'm thinking the little lady meant "Arsenal."
But then she was so wrong on so much of this article she should have got an incomplete and been given a do over.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5027c1e469beddc37600000bMotor-TSun, 12 Aug 2012 10:47:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5027c1e469beddc37600000b
That work you used. I don't think it means what you think it means.
ARTILLERY
ar·til·ler·y (är-tl-r)
n. pl. ar·til·ler·ies
1. Large-caliber weapons, such as cannon, howitzers, and missile launchers, that are operated by crews.
2. The branch of an army that specializes in the use of such weapons.
3. The science of the use of guns; gunnery.
4. Weapons, such as catapults, arbalests, and other early devices, used for discharging missiles.
[Middle English artillerie, from Old French, from artillier, to equip, perhaps alteration of atiller, from Vulgar Latin *apticulre, from Latin aptre, to fit, adapt, from aptus, apt; see apt.]http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5026e78eecad044e69000008DonLSat, 11 Aug 2012 19:15:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5026e78eecad044e69000008
Scalia intentionally whipped up the phrase " dangerous and unusual "....intentionally, in that he knew judges would use that phrase how they saw fit without any objective reasoning.... Objective reasoning that the court in US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) used when they reasoned that the weapon one has a right to keep and bear under the 2nd Amendment, was one that had military utility and could be used for the common defense...such as automatic weapons. Prior cases involving machine guns NEVER had any of the Circuit Courts concluding that machine guns were not protected, but that such weapons were only protected under the 2nd Amendment for use by state organized militias and not to individuals.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/502592d76bb3f78641000004Greg W.Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:01:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/502592d76bb3f78641000004
Both answers above are not 100%. Mr. Henry was found guilty of not paying a tax for the ownership of a machine gun. He was found guilty of a tax law. There is no federal law that makes making a machine gun illegal. You just have to pay a $200 tax to make one. In 1986 Congress no longer allowed anyone to pay the tax to make a machine gun. This is another problem because the amendment that stopped the registration of new machine guns was never passed by congress but still made it into the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban:_The_Hughes_Amendment" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban:_The_Hughes_Amendment</a>)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50250edf6bb3f7874c000012cknittigFri, 10 Aug 2012 09:38:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50250edf6bb3f7874c000012
The full story below... He was under the influence and had a history with police, not to mention modifying a weapon into a fully automatic machine gun is a felony in itself. Agree with it or not, Americans do have the right to own automatic weapons. You just can't make on yourself then shoot it in your neighborhood after a bottle of Jack and a hand full of Xanax.
<a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/ak/news/2011/July_2011/Henry_Matthew_07-05-11.html" target="_blank">http://www.justice.gov/usao/ak/news/2011/July_2011/Henry_Matthew_07-05-11.html</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50250c2deab8ea0920000002cabaretvoltaireFri, 10 Aug 2012 09:27:09 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50250c2deab8ea0920000002
Abby Rogers, you are not interpreting the news correctly. The ruling is simply stating that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is precisely why there are laws in place to facilitate the ownership of machine guns in the United States. Americans want those laws.
One can absolutely have a machine gun completely legally if one takes the correct steps. The problem with the guy in Alaska was possessing a homemade machine gun. He didn't have the legal ability to manufacture a machine gun. He was punished for not following the law. He was not punished because supposedly ''Americans don't have a right to own machine guns'' as you said.